The human mind is capable of many things. Comprehending, learning and improving being some of the many. And as journalists we must be capable of perfecting the art of communication, so to speak.
There are many disputes and discrepancies on how to divulge our information. (I’m assuming that the audience is intelligent, as I shouldn’t throw so many big words in one sentence for average readers). I’m sure most of us have come across the KISS principle, Keep It Simple, Stupid. It makes me wonder as to what extent we must keep our stories simple.
The ABC of writing (JR101) has stated that accuracy, brevity and clarity are to be our essential formula for writing. We also have to take into account the powerful introductions and 20-word sentences.
On the contrary, we must keep it simple. This leaves us to interpret the audience and what vocabulary they understand. Using big words in sentences does indeed keep the accuracy and brevity alive. But the clarity however, might be a different story.
Examples are found in the Plain Writing Act (2010):
The before and after show significant changes that are worth analysing.
“The amount of expenses reimbursed to a claimant under this subpart shall be reduced by any amount that the claimant receives from a collateral source in connection with the same act of international terrorism. In cases in which a claimant receives reimbursement under this subpart for expenses that also will or may be reimbursed from another source, the claimant shall subrogate the United States to the claim for payment from the collateral source up to the amount for which the claimant was reimbursed under this subpart.”
“If you get a payment from a collateral source, we will reduce our payment by the amount you get. If you get payments from us and from a collateral source for the same expenses, you must pay us back the amount we paid you.” – Web source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plain_Writing_Act_of_2010